Idiots Cast in Porcelain: On “Liberals” and Their Place in Cosmos

Expressions “liberal” and “liberalism” are pejoratives often offering meanings far different from what those words originally meant.

In this podcast we will attempt to remedy that by taking this, for the most part American, notion and apply to it Plato’s method of describing the mental and political attitude by analyzing the type of man indulging it.

Unfortunately, we are forced to conclude that Plato’s notion of the worse kind of man – the tyrant – doesn’t hold the candle to tedious little critter we have to deal with here.

(If for some reason the Mixcloud presents you with problems, the podcasts are available on Kali Tribune’s Youtube channel. Podcasts can be downloaded via this link )

Branko Malić

Kali Tribune runs on reader’s support. If you found the above informative and/or enlightening, considersupporting us.

42 Responses

1. The idea that good or evil is something beside the point. Whatever comes your way you just need to see how you can adapt to it. Example: transhumanism and robotization of life- doesn’t matter whether it’s good or evil and we shouldn’t think in these terms- we should think how we can adapt to these things to the best of our ability.

2. The idea that truth does not matter, nor who is right or wrong- if it happens anyway that’s it, you could and should do nothing about it. Example: it isn’t important which side is right on the question of abortion- no one can prevent a women to do “whatever she wants with her body” .

3. Ironically enough, these people are the first to take to the public square and yell their outrage at corrupt politicians. Apparently it does not occur to them that the politicians are just doing “their thing” as they are doing “their thing”. After all…corruption is not about good or bad. You can’t keep someone in power from abusing their privilliges. So instead of being outraged let’s just see how to best adapt to it…right?

Of course, if someone were to point out that post-modernity alone, of all of human history, considers questions of morality and truth irrelevant, he would immediately be met with that grandfather of all arguments, irrefutable and infailible: “yes, because we have evolved”…

Yes, that is indeed true that we evolved. We only have to see more clearly what is the point of that evolution.
We can only find starting point by recognizing the fact that that what in the past was given or taken for granted, for whatever reason, now we are able to question with our own power of intellect.
Though, we cannot go back or reverse the process and revive the original “innocence of being” by turning to the past and past solutions.
The present state of or conditions, for those who want to see it, pints to certain inevitable direction.
Roughly speaking it has to do with evolving the present intellectual habits of abstraction of everything, even matter, into the new abaility, not present in any epoch before. Similar like today’s intellectualism came on the stage relatively recent, in time of ancient Greek.

Intellectualism, as most if not all -isms, has little or nothing to do with classical Greek philosophy. As for evolution, it is, as a principle, pure myth of extremely recent origin, far more recent than Greek philosophy. The people Mihai and I talk about here are those who shake off their identity, origins and, finally, very essence – humanity, that is – in order to be able to act as if they can create something out of nothing. What in fact is coming to pass is that they are free falling, not evolving. The only result of free fall can be hitting the bottom.

The idea of evolution is the most obnoxious ideology of modernity- a mental virus which shuts off the immunity system- which spiritually consists of discernment and the capacity to understand that the truth is not some final result of historicist process but it is prior and above all historical becoming.

If I will have time, I will dedicate, maybe, an article on how questioning some of the most basic facts of our existence and the need to find arguments in their favor is not a sign of mental expansion or anything of that sort, but a degeneracy which pointing towards a losing of touch with reality.

Hi Branko,
What you speak of in this podcast, the idea of indifference, or as you accurately called it nihilism, has very little to do with American liberalism as a political system. I agree that this indifference emerged from the left, but even here in the States some of us can separate this corrosive ideology out from a political system that tries (and fails more often than it succeeds) to address the natural and devastating inequities of American finance capitalism. Many liberals are motivated by a strong sense of right and wrong, and a few are even motivated by the Traditional Christian notion of right and wrong, and willing to try to use or correct the political system to help those who need it. The person you mention in this podcast, the idiot who thinks morality is childish, is suffering from a disease of the mind that goes well beyond the concept of American political liberalism. If you mean to suggest that American democratic politics is responsible for this doofus’s mentality, I think you need to give much more detail about its origins. I would hate to think that you’re giving an a-causal explanation for a serious problem like American nihilistic indifference. I would argue, and I think you would agree, that Satan’s political tent is much larger and includes many more supporters than just indifferent nihilistic “liberals”. Anyone who forsakes mercy (like the fascists you mention) and calls evil good, and good evil, (like the idiot you mention) or even hates his brother is under the influence of the evil one. Thank God for repentance and contrition. Anyway, just a thought, God bless and keep up the good work.

I pointed out the caveat about American use of the term “liberal” at the beginning and that I am far from comfortable with it, although I used it here for convenience sake. Unfortunately, its not always convenient to be totally precise with terminology.

I concur that it is absolutely wrong, not to mention highly ignorant to reduce American politics and influence in the world to just its negative aspects, and thus to deny the right of 300 million people exist in the sphere of what can be termed as American culture.

Completely different from this however, is to note the impression left by official spokespersons and media outlets of the established left, is that of endless piling upon trivial issues that reflect some egotistic desire for entertainment (e.g. free speech activism that is almost entirely about access to pornography and piracy”) or sexual promiscuity (anti-abortion, LGBT). I seldom even see discussion about the effective ways in which power and authority could be wielded in a democratic state to overcome massive legislative hurdles, such as for example the defense spending deadlock, financial reform, medical insurance and immediate need for vast infrastructure. The liberal (i.e. official) press does like to nag a lot, naughty right wingers or Russians. Nobody listens to naggers. This press is pressing itself dry.

I think this impossibility of getting over Americanism applies mostly to pseudo intellectuals, whereas common run of men tend to be at least potentially able to transcend the mentality of individualism.

I don’t comment publicly on private persons unless they represent some idea or movement. However, I could go so far as to say that Dyer’s parents have my deepest sympathies.

Sympathies were meant in the sense of feeling deeply sorry for someone. As for Americans and American individualism, I’ll reformulate: people are tend to be as good or bad as anybody else in the world. I used to meet, long before the advent of internet, Americans who were staunchly religious and their religious life was not really tainted with the mentality you spoke about. The people who treat religions like items in the supermarket where unknown to me before Internet and all of them happen to be intellectuals in the lose sense of the word.

Im left very confused with that cryptic sneak-diss. Im only trying to navigate the internet space of American converts, which on the traditionalist end have 2 main representatives popular on social media. So im only trying to see if theres something i may be hearing/reading thats off for example laxness on Duginism or such

The fact of the matter is that KT has nothing to do with “internet space of American converts”, except in the context of some general critical analysis, and we don’t offer opinions and guidelines on individuals, save, again, in the context of some broader subject.

Bringing out Jay Dyer, a rather unsavory character, nevertheless, provokes me to break this rule, and it’s neither good nor profitable for readers. There is some material evidence that would demonstrate the above claim without shadow of a doubt. Yet this comes from personal acquiantance with the specimen in question and we don’t take out personal stuff here, save in great need.

That’s not what this site is for.

So, if you seek opinions on such people you might be in the wrong place.

Also, if you seek guidance on Internet based content, you’re also in the wrong place.

I had let Mihai’s comment through, because he feels he should provide you with some guidance so you don’t get lost and in the process had explained what’s wrong with the net nodes like Dyer in more detail than I care to.

KT’s advice: all the time in your life when you’re focused on any kind of religion related activity or state should be spent off line.

And that’s, more or less, all you’ll get here as far as this subject is concerned.

@Boomski: I’ll offer my two cents on J.D.- he’s a typical representative of the category for whom book reading+ mental assimilation of dogma= knowledge of Orthodoxy.
There is a lot to be said about him and his approach, however try to look a bit at his website: you get a melange of Hollywood movies (almost always featured with sexy pictures), conspiracy research, false flag controversies, comedy and to top it all…theology. There is something seriously wrong with a salad like this…it will most likely cause indigestion. I’m not saying that you can’t get some good insights from him- sometimes very brilliant remarks- however it all remains at an abstract level, below the level of truly transformative knowledge.
And this is the reason I mentioned the salad which is to be found at his website: true theology requires a state of mind and spirit which is detached from the daily turmoil of the daily flow of events which is to be found in media and the like.
Plus, this constant obsession with debates points to the fact that people like this are more concerned with being right and winning than with actually living out what they believe in.

For Orthodoxy in America (strictly traditional) there are much better sources out there: you can check, for example, a professor called Clark Carlton- he’s got a series of podcasts for Ancient Faith, or Father Stephen Freeman. Though I would not endorse everything, especially the latter, holds, they are no doubt solid witnesses.

Thats a fair critique. I understand, although I would say getting a picture of where civilization has gone off course philosophically and spiritually is enlightening.

As far as theory vs. practice: it is exceedingly difficult in 21st century America to live a genuinely Christian life. The social fabric is simply not based on maintaining Christian communities and lifestyles. So I think the retreat into ones own mind is understandable. I think the problem here is that allowing Christian ethics to flourish is a communal effort, and what I see around me is deadset against that, my surroundings are entirely secular and any Christian I know is lukewarm at best or just nominal.

So im not really asking for advice about that but just explaining that many people will “try to figure it all out” because of the structural difficulties in actually repenting. Although I do agree there should be more of a focus on seeking repentance in ones own life over figuring out where things went wring.

That’s a correct observation: the environment we live in (and this is valid for all places which have been integrated into the globalist cesspoll) and the things that have been inculcated into our minds and souls pose the biggest threat to an authentic Christian life.
I have dealt with some of these things in my two part article: “What’s to be done: on holy indifference”.

You should check it out.

To such a predicament the only advice someone like me can give is “do what you can”.

Mr. Branco may have his reasons to withhold judgment on these people, but that doesn’t stop me, random internet guy from offering my extremely well informed and important opinion.

Overall I like Jay. He’s personable, funny, confident and a great debater. In one of his videos, he absolutely demolishes an Evola perennialist. In another podcast featuring Styx, he takes down American style libertarianism. Both videos are highly worth a watch, especially for Americans, who tend to be quite superficially taken in with these doctrines. But then again my knowledge of this person doesn’t come from personal interaction with him, but only from watching some of the few videos that he doesn’t hide behind a paywall. He may well be a devout Christian, but the Californian in him never ceases to shine through.

I any case I can’t imagine how a sane person, religious or not, can stand through 2 hours of summer blockbuster superhero garbage, let alone have the wits left to thoroughly analyze every scene afterward.

Orthodox Nationalist astounds me with its Hitler apologetics from a traditional faith based viewpoint. At the bottom of the page, one can see the site admin’s kolovrat userpic, a symbol clearly showing the degree of allegiance to Christianity. From the looks of it, the author is trying to proselytize to the Stormfront crowd. Good luck with that. I’d place about as much credibility on it as on brother Nathanael (although nowhere near as funny).

The Orthodox Nationalist is a very good source for learning about various forms of political philosophy. He packs a lot detail into the one hour shows. I rate him highly for that but I do think he is misplaced among the christian identity and white nationalist crowd which is where he chooses to place himself. He’s an outcast academic who seems to be stranded in the wilderness. Probably a bit like Alfred Rosenberg who was sidelined by the regime after they gained power.

No but he is worth examining as I think he was like Spengler, a generation seeking to create a coherent alternative to the materialistic rational worldview. They have different insights which illuminate aspects of history and culture. I like the spectrum of political ideas without being party political. I am reading a collection of anarchist thought which covers a range of thinkers from Bakunin to Berdyaev to Emma Goldman. That is the sort of range that the National Orthodox offers. In fact he has covered Berdyaev twice. It’s a shame he is situated with the WN crowd but that’s no reason to dismiss his work.
.

To each his own, let’s say for the sake of argument. But you put an analogy between Rosenberg and this ON gent. Rosenberg was sidelined by the regime more or less because he was useless to them save as an ideologue. Yet he was completely on board with total violence inherent in it, based on his theory of history and race. I find it very hard to understand what is non-materialistic in his ideas.

Intelligent people do not chose allegiances stupidly. As I don’t think this ON is both intelligent and stupid, I assume his ideas are aligned with WN and, correspondingly, his level of understanding is aligned with theirs.

I find somebody situating himself with WN crowd a pretty good reason to dismiss his work.

Anyway, not my place to tell people what to think, but I have reasons for not promoting any of these internet operators on this website, even by denouncing them.

As an Orthodox myself, after skimming a little through what that “Orthodox” Nationalist has to offer, I can say, without any shadow of hesitation that his work is absolutely trash and can be dismissed without any further ado.

You’ve got 30 minutes podcast on the way concerning your question, why Left always seems to get away with crimes of its figureheads. It is very difficult and interesting problem, and in no way to be dismissed as simply Left being more supported by the intellectuals or more crafty in arguments.

If I may anticipate a little: I would say that one reason is because the modern breed called “intellectuals” are concerned mainly with abstract, dis-incarnate ideas. As such, ideas behind something like Nazism do not even try to affirm some universal good, only a power of the will of a few.
While the left has always hidden its monstrous aberrations behind a facade of humanism, universal happiness and all that stuff.

So for our modern and post-modern “intellectuals” if the idea sounds good in the abstract, it’s all fine. The 100+ millions of deaths caused by communism are not actually communism, you see…they are mere deviations from the ideal.

Quite frankly, I’d like all these Western intellectuals to be sent off to some Stalinist paradise for a few years. i wonder if that would be enough to bring them down from their puffy pinky abstract idealist clouds.

I understand that. However I have yet to hear why Sartre and his support of Mao and numerous intellectuals and artists who supported the communist regimes does not invalidate their work. There is a serious imbalance in that.
It’s a fascinating period to me, the twenties and thirties. The search for an ideology to suit modern society and the grotesque results.

When looking at the alt right’s favorite authors, the yardstick which I would hit them would be their relevant extent in the context of history, and the degree of applicability, taken in good faith, outside of their intended audience. Carl Schmitt’s analysis of the dynamics of power far transcends his own ambitious drive to partake in them. Yockey’s idealism is infectious and indicates of a mental state which in no circumstances relegates only to the world view of the Western new right. Even Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s works encompass the thinking of the post romantic era and can serve as a critical basis on which similar views, perennially resurgent, can be assessed. And then of course you have Carlyle and Toynbee whose acceptance in mainstream scholarship doesn’t detract the least from their significant contributions to the compass of right wing ideas.

Evola interesting because of his crypto-catholicism, his dadaist aesthetic take on eastern tradition, as well as his magical and mystical writings. He`s not interesting because of his articles in the Torre where he basically played the role of brownshirt Pepe Escobar.

Rosenberg doesn’t strike me as very significant. Everything that he wrote was hitched to the ascent of the power structure in which he tried to play a key role (let’s not forget that he was one of Hitler’s early rivals for leadership of the Nazi party). When he failed to construct an ideology around which (and himself) could form a power base, he tried to imprint his views on the Nazi party, a move of course Hitler wouldn’t allow a chance in hell to succeed. The title “myth of the 20th century” is indicative of what I mean here – the 20th century for him began in 1933.

Anybody could come up with a world view tied to a single mood that affects a certain historical period. It’s not a big achievement. Even I’m writing a fantasy novel and struggling to come up with metaphysical systems that underpin it. A convincing metaphysical “system”, if we can call it that, is not simply a product of something people compose and then agree upon, in a memetic fashion, as modern psychologians would have you believe. I increasingly am led to believe that it is a product of disclosure of an essentially external nature, first experienced, and then diluted by thinking processes of the human mind into something we can then put into words. Of course such a view is grounded on the need of a certain idea to have a history and an influence in the greater scale of things, in order to be taken seriously. This doesn’t only apply to “good” ideas, but also ones for which the historical record is unequivocally damning, such as communism and racial darwinism. “By their fruits you shall know them” and all that.

I only mentioned Rosenberg because the ON stated that he introduced that book in his college lectures and thinks that led to his dismissal from the university.
I don’t think the alt right has intellectual substance but I am interested in that period of competing ideologies which as you say are embedded in their period but claim to transcend them in some way.
I look forward to the podcast on the left that Branco is producing.

I don’t get that crypto-Catholicism regarding J Evola.
Evola’s view on Catholicism (and Christianity in general) were not constant over the years- he went from outright hostility, through “there is some good in it” to “it’s good enough for the masses, but not for an esoterist “, however he never gave any sign of an adherence- even if uneasy- to Catholicism.

In the past two years I have been wanting to write an analysis of Evola and his world-view, but it is something I keep postponing.
He’s a class A example of a seasoned seeker who never becomes a finder, a person who runs circles around the mark without ever reaching it…

The best analogy with Julio Evola would be the author Mario Puzo, who so efficaciously described the inner workings, moods and persons of the Mafia in his novels without actually being part of it, that the reader is led to take them as revelations of an insider.

The significance of Evola lies in his perhaps unwitting exposition of occult esoteric spheres of Western Europe. Prior to his crippling by a bomb, he was intensively studying Masonic literature in Vienna. Many telltale of the latter worldview can be clearly seen in his writings – the gradual degeneration of man from an ethereal essence to a corporeal one, polar unity of beings to dissolution to individual parts, decline of civilization from solar, arctic, “Aryan” (in the sense of mountain) principles to telluric, lunar and feminine ethos of democracy and mass oriented culture, and finally, the existential need for social order to be organized according to a vertical principle of the castes. The subject of metaphysics is “numen” or power inherent in nature that are actuated by a conscious actor who subsumes the identity of a consciousness endowed higher being or power in nature, while foregoing the lesser, purely physiological ego self along with its nature and needs. The fundamental medium of action is magic, ritual, sacrifice and initiation, in the purest form of course, devoid of any external emotional sentiment. The hermetic end is pure individuation accomplished by unconditioned action.

From study of extant and relatively open sources of masonic occult, Theosophy and eastern mystical disciplines, Evola attempted to recreate a synthetic picture of Indo-European core tradition at once freed from what he saw as the unsubstantiated faith of religion and the philosophical skepsis of modernity. I won’t go in depth with the significant problems with this venture. Let’s just say that since Evola aggressively disregarded any scholarly academic approach to his findings, so too in reverse, his work can’t be assessed on standards befitting academic rigor, and thus should be thus seen as belonging in the realm of speculative fantasy in the vogue of Tolkien (who in guise of fiction conducted very much the same thing) or perhaps Michael Moorcock. Since a writer of fiction is absolved from the need to reconstruct a thing to the best extent as it to its objective nature, he can freely engage in synthesis of parts taken from different sources, where his own subjective, critical aesthetic biases prevail in creation of an internally consistent artistic vision. As a writer, I know this all too well. This where I should say, both the author’s modernity and Catholicism make themselves evident (Evola at times identified himself as a “Catholic pagan”, a claim that wouldn’t put him at odds with Freemasons, who like to use the word in the same way).

The concept of Empire that he so fervently championed, unites its subjects on the basis of a shared hierarchy and spiritual unity that transcends ethnic or regional boundaries. This is essentially the very meaning of the word “Catholic” and represents the extent of what the Christian Church accomplished in Western Europe. Of course Evola completely downplays the transfiguring and civilizing role of the Church in what he himself termed to be a re-emergence of what he saw as deeply traditional principle of the Medieval Age. To him, the driving essence behind this was the rediscovery by ascetic Christian militant orders, of preserved lores of ancient occult knowledge for which they quested in the Orient, which in turn formed the aristocratic basis of Western European political landscape, and the ecumenical scepter of the Ghibelline German Emperor. The fact that you can’t look at the Grail, knighthood, sovereignty, regality, mystic union of the feminine and masculine prevalent in Medieval romance, without acknowledging a deep and pervasive influence of the New Testament behind them, was not something Evola seriously considered. Wagner’s Parsifal opera was in some ways much more closer to should I say, crux of the subject.

In closing I should regrettably pay note to the lot of young people on the internet having read perhaps Revolt or ugh, Men among the Ruins, uncritically accepting the tone of exposition found therein, accordingly depose decidedly fecal articles and comments on various right wing websites. Their intellectual level is telling. I liken them to rabbits seeking the company of foxes.

Dismissing ON because of his involvement with WN only makes sense from a non American (or Canadian or Australian) angle. In America, white nationalism meshes with traditional philosophies. Its almost like some of you look down on the particular circumstances in America. To be opposed to the modernist revolutionaries in our context means to have something approximating “white nationalism” in our ideology. America is also heavily judaized, so critiquing us for “white nationalism” or “antisemitism” is just chauvanist in its lack of empathy towards the American situation. I would not lecture an eastern european in such a way. And Orthodox Nationalist points out the long history of commentary on ethnicity in Christianity which is indeed much closer to “far right nationalism” than “political correct multiculturalism.”

To conclude this comment thread I would refer you to what I wrote in my first reply to you about internet intellectuals and common people in America, expressing my admiration for the second group. Also I’d like to paraphrase deceptively simple, but quite deep American saying:

“Christian is what Christian does”.

This is most you’ll get from KT about the matter.

As for Christian, presumably, Eastern Churches’, far right nationalism, as in “heavenly Serbia”, “Third Rome”, “Fourth Rome”, “Putin the Katehon”, etc. anybody who lives close or indeed under its shadow has full right to ban that Orthodox Nationalist of yours from entering his country.

You don’t know what you’re talking about because you have no experience of it and, presumably, you haven’t studied it thoroughly, which in turn requires extensive knowledge of history and at least one or two Eastern European languages, one of them preferably being Slavic.

And that’s it. If that offends you, it is the fact that offends you, not Eastern Europeans.

Christianity is for the most part about prayer and fasting. I’m positively certain that none of the internet people you inquired about is particularly interested in that. Therefore, I have no particular interest in them, too.

I am offended that jews control the American media and blacks and hispanics are slaughtering us in the streets and whites are being demographically replaced. I cant give a damn about what excuse anyone could give not to stand up against it. I am against injustice, and I dont need to know what goes on in eastern europe to know what goes on here. Im not accepting a LOSER attitude, and Im glad Ive become aware that the philosophy taught here is one of laying down and accepting being raped by our parasitic overlords. The common people in America are coming to support white racial consciousness, not some other nonesense. For us in America, you have amounted to that which you oppose, navel gazing and LARPing. Securing a Christian national character requires addressing national politics, and radically altering it.

I’m going to have to take Boomski’s side here. First is he’s actually willing to participate in civil discussion. A typical WN/alt right guy that you find on reddit or 4chan to put it quite mildly won’t extend that courtesy.

One of the most useful things about this site is that it can provide a potent critical stance to the prevailing sentiments of the contemporary right from a side to which they might actually be willing to lend an ear. But there are very, very few people who from the outset, would share your mindset Branco, especially in the English speaking world. Your chief audience on the Anglophone part of the internet that you so casually dismiss, from my point of view, would increasingly be these WN/alt right types who see themselves as traditionalists. I wouldn’t be so quick to drive them away if I were you.

Most of the alt right are nihilists and morally relativist ex libertarians. I dont like the atheists and “pagans” just because they have some racial idea. The alt right is subversive and probably heavily infiltrated by intelligence assets. The major outlets are psychological operations and controlled opposition. I wouldnt have any use for that. I dont see anything wrong with adressing the sick nature of the world though, and that includes politics. Whether people like it or not, the plot against white americans is evil, and if we oppose evil we have to oppose the plot against whites. It has the same source as the plan to implement transgenderism, destroy the family, and it aslo has the SAME SOURCE as the rebellion against Christianity. Evil is evil!!!

Boomski may have a point here regarding what goes on in America, I wouldn’t be able to comment on that.
The problem is he is confusing accident with essence.

What is happening in the West is an attempt at cultural dissolution and the attack is in essence anti-Christian and the whole of the civilization which was- one way or another- a direct product or a by-product of the former Christian core and essence of said civilization.
It so happens that the population upholding this essence or at least its by-products is, for the most part, white. But that is the accident, not the essence of the matter. Were there, let’s imagine, an Asian population who were upholding the ideals of previously mentioned civilization, then the attack would have been directed against them as much as it is now against white Europeans and Americans.

In all of human history until the 19th century there was no such thing as a “white culture” or “white civilization”. We were first of all Christian, Muslim etc, then Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants etc., then Romanians, Serbians, English, Italians etc.
Never “whites”.
Even in the 19th century, “white man” meant mostly Germanic/Anglo-Saxon, it obviously did not include anything further to the East, although we also happen to be white.

So this “white nationalism” thing is actually a by-product of the most recent post-modern globalism, that is its essence, not of the Christian civilization which post-modern globalism especially attempts to destroy.
Just like for the typical liberal globalist there are no sexes, nations, religions etc., only “citizens of the world”, so for the typical “white nationalist” the only thing that matters is to be “white”; regardless if white peoples across the world may have a history in which they more than once clashed very violently.

As for the “naval gazing” (thanks for the latin compliment, Branko), I’d say that a life of prayer and fasting, even if imperfectly lived within the life of a single individual, does a lot more good in the world than all the activism and agitation of the various “isms”.
The chief navel gazer- St Gregory Palamas- would certainly agree with that, as would the majority of the Christian civilizations across history (some accidentaly white), though I bet that ON guy wouldn’t be interested in all that.

Attitudes such as white nationalism, if they can be said to have any connection to the Christian past at all, it would be to the most abject millenarist heresies of the neo-protestant milieu.

I’m an American. I’ve lived here my whole life. I am as previously stated a Greek Orthodox Christian, and I am “white”, whatever the hell that means. Boomski, whats the matter with you? Your sentiments about media ownership and your vulgar, “blacks and hispanics are slaughtering us in the streets and whites are being demographically replaced” is empirically and demonstrably not true and to put it bluntly stupid. Do you think believing in traditional values gives you a license to lie? Do you think Christian values, that is traditional Christian values, equate to the sentiments you express in your previous comment? If you answer in the affirmative to either of those then I would direct you to the sermon on the mount and the Passion of our Lord, where in both instances we are commanded to practice holiness and forgiveness, not racism and that vile demonic nationalism! You need to get our more man, America is a nice place with nice people of all stripes. And please, for the love of God, enough with your petty self indulgent victim routine, its pathetic. You should find a priest, Orthodox or Catholic will do, and ask to take confession, you need to clean the mirror my friend.